In my opinion posting a blog without allowing comments should be outlawed from the site . Sure there comes a time to shut down comments but not at the onset . How about expressing your opinions on NO COMMENTS ALLOWED blogs ...

[[I think everyone already knows what I think of your so-called "moderation"]

But since you apparently suffer from delusions of grandeur your perceptions are highly distorted .

As to those blog posts you linked to , yes they are strong opinions . There is nothing inherently wrong with strong opinions , yours included . The difference is comments were allowed . And although it is possible to abuse the comment deletions , the point is they were allowed . If a member abuses comment deletion he will get a reputation .

[[and can be relied upon to act like an adult]

Pot meet kettle ..

[[Some of us don't have the time or the inclination to moderate our blog on this site]

I'm sure you know what happens on that site you got banned from when you don't moderate your articles properly .You get in trouble with the moderators ... is that what happened to U ?

BTW , I noticed that your counter blog to me still did NOTALLOWCOMMENTS . Your cowardly publishing style will be seen by all members and remembered . That is your own choice .

So now I am running akindergarten. Great. I always liked the 5th grade better.

First... some facts about the blogs. They are holy. You may or may not accept comments. You may delete comments. If you choose to accept comments, you should lay out what will and will not be deleted, and not after the fact.

Now to some specifics. First of all, it seems that the blogs are being used as away of advertising a specific POV politically, without any realoriginalcontent. That wasn't the concept of the blogs when they were set up. They were supposed to be for your best work, that you could archive. The recent bunch of "political commentary" via memes, is really not what they are here for.

Next, the blogs can't break the CoC, end of story. One of the only two bannings we have had on this site, was RC using the blogs for a personal attack. That being said, if the attack is on a mod, you need a different mod to delete the blog posting.

Last, we may need to revisit the usage of blogs if adults don't know how to respect their proper usage. That will be a huge loss to everyone, since this site is dedicated to freedom of speech, hence the tagline: "Speak your mind", but just like any freedom, yours ends when it steps on my toes. Now that would be a huge loss.

Oh Rich, one last thing:

this "member" [iarnuocon] is only devoted to poking at the lines of the rules to find out what he can get away with . In my opinion , if left unchecked he will eventually destroy this site .

This is a personal attack, and is just as dangerous to the blogs in the long run, as a direct nasty comment, since we all know what you are implying here.

[[you should lay out what will and will not be deleted, and not after the fact.]

I couldn't agree more . It is better to have it spelled out in writing before you publish . That way people can tell if you are being petty , mean spirited and/or biased up front .

[[First of all, it seems that the blogs are being used as away of advertising a specific POV politically, without any real original content. That wasn't the concept of the blogs when they were set up. They were supposed to be for your best work, that you could archive. The recent bunch of "political commentary" via memes, is really not what they are here for.]

Great point . It's too bad they are being abused . Personally I think if someone if going to express a strong opinion on a public forum , they should be prepared to handle strong comments as feedback . If they don't allow comments at the onset or abuse comment deletion then they are suppressing free speech , not promoting it . That is as contrary to our founding spirit as you can get .

[[Last, we may need to revisit the usage of blogs if adults don't know how to respect their proper usage. That will be a huge loss to everyone]

That would be unfortunate . Where is the rest of the group to express their opinions on this tricky topic ?

I agree with Rich, we should be able tochallenge what people state in their blogs,especially when they areoffensive and insulting as the Irony blog form iarnuocon is.

Perrie I suggest that if anything goes for the blogs then please remove them from the front page.

The choice to post a blog or a discussion is left to the author. A blog isnt a discussion necessarily, and comments arent required. They can state anything they wish as long as they arent directly attacking another member here. Iar's blogs are completely appropriate regardless of how people may or may not personally feel about them.

Attack pieces directed at a member here arent however. I defer to Perrie here, but my judgement as a moderator would be to delete this blog post, since it was an attack piece directed at a member (the member being Iar)

Perrie , see the last sentence in my blog :

"Personal antagonistic descriptions will be allowed , however ." That is my opinion as I said in the comment . This is about honest communication ... in other words freedom of speech.

Arch ,

Thanks for your POV .

Thanks Peter for weighing in. I am having the other mods look at this, and I encourage other members to put in their two cents, since the outcome of this could have a direct impact on the membership and the one thing that we all wanted here was transparency.

Max,

Iar's first two blog posts were not about a member. They were memes. The last one was.

D'wayne ,

[[my judgement as a moderator would be to delete this blog post, since it was an attack piece directed at a member (the member being Iar)]

I'm not going to blow smoke up yr keester here . It is an attack piece on Iar's publishing style [and other members who are abusing the blogs] . Please give us your opinion on the concept of posting highly controversial topics and then not allowing comment or deleting them if they disagree with the publisher . I have given mine .
And as I said above ... the last sentence in my blog :
"Personal antagonistic descriptions will be allowed , however ."

By definition, a blog contains reflections and comments. In this specific case, CoC aside, the personal reflection of the blogger was designed to get a reaction. I gather from this blog that there clearly IS a reaction. But this is a 2nd blog that needed to be created as a result of the first blog not accepting the reactions. There seems to be a dysfunction somewhere. Maybe more than one, eh?

Rich,

It's this comment that I have a problem with:

As usual this "member" is only devoted to poking at the lines of the rules to find out what he can get away with . In my opinion , if left unchecked he will eventually destroy this site .

Since you are obviously talking about Iar. That would make it a personal attack.

And for the record, Iar, your meme that followed is also a personal attack. The only reason that both of these still stand, is that this issue must be put to bed, or it will come up again and again.

BTW any changes can be offered about the blogs. I think the CoC covers the entire site and is not in need for an updating... unless it's a real ground breaker.

Bruce ,

[[Blogs are sacred.]

Why ? Aren't they subject to the same problems and restrictions as other forms of communication ?

[[since I started it, I do agree that personal flame wars do not belong in them. ]

Thanks for owning up and taking personal responsibility . How do you feel about the idea of stating your rules for comment deletion in your actual blog ?

Bruce,

I really don't have a problem with your actual blog post, other than how I had envisioned them. That being said, they are yours to do as you please.

But I agree with the rest of your post, OhPharaoh.

Rich,

"Please give us your opinion on the concept of posting highly controversial topics and then not allowing comment or deleting them if they disagree with the publisher ."

As far as I'm concerned, if it is a blog, then it is what it is. Not all blogs accept comments, and you have the choice here to either accept them or not accept them. You also have the option to initiate a discussion addressing any points from a blog that you feel should be explored further.

As far as deleting them if they dont agree with the publisher, implying that comments were allowed, then no that would not be okay. You arent required to agree with everybody commenting.

Bruce is spot on regarding the proper placement of this article however, and Iar's response to this also falls under the Bruce's judgement here.

The bottom line here is you acknowledge the intent of this blog is to attack a member here. As a moderator, do you feel this blog should stand based on the evidence provided by the author himself?

Jon,

The problem is the whether or not a person is allowed to close down comments or accept them. Even at NV, you were allowed that choice. You are even allowed that choice in the forum, but there it would serve no purpose, since staying on the board is decided by how interested people are in posting to your article.

Well Perrie we might have to put in the COC about personal attacks on other peoples God or whatpeoplewouldconsider Holy. It is verydifficult to let it slide. Highlyoffensive!

Perrie ,

I added "in my opinion" . And it is my honest opinion . I want this blog to be a real open expression of personal opinions including "Personal antagonistic descriptions" . That is why I do not want to see his ridiculous attack blog on me removed . Let it stay .

Arch Man.

I disagree. Religion is open season just as is politics.

Max,

There has been no decision about this and the last blog post, since they are both personal attacks. At this point, they are both staying since, it's up for discussion to come to a resolution. But Bruce is right about something. The only place these fights belong are heated discussions. He was spot on, about the purpose of that group.

OK I have 3 mods here... should Iar's cat mod post be pulled? Rich you obviously can't weigh in.

D'Wayne ,

[[Not all blogs accept comments, and you have the choice here to either accept them or not accept them. ]

So you're OK with having the front page get fouled up with offensive posts [to some people] ?

[[The bottom line here is you acknowledge the intent of this blog is to attack a member here. ]

I already answered that below . It is an attack on his style of publishing which IMO is damaging to the site .

Arch,

I have to agree with D'Wayne. Oddly enough, what I found offensive about it was that it was discussing oral sex on the front page, which goes to show, that that someone will always get bugged by something, and why we try to delete so little here.

Pete: Then I should be able to respond to such trash. And it's not so much about religion as it is about respecting one's faith.

Bruce ,

My blog is not designed to be some meaningless knockdown dragout fight . It is designed to address serious issues about our site and what it is intended to be [as the members see it] . That is why it should be right where it is rather than buried in some no-holds-barred forum . Read my rules for comments IN MY BLOG . There are holds barred here .

"So you're OK with having the front page get fouled up with offensive posts [to some people] ?"

Yes. People like to be offended, and I dont see it as "fouling up" the front page. Quite frankly, I loved both of those meme's and copied them to my computer for future use. "Offensive" isnt a characteristic by which we determine content.

Ok Perrie but what's the point of attacking someone else's God.

Perrie,

Iar's cat blog was not directed at anybody specifically in the blog. If certain moderator(s) feel it was directed at them, then that is their cross to bear, not Iar's. It does not deserve to be deleted by moderator's. If he chooses to do so himself, that would be acceptable.

That's where I weigh in on the topic.

The question that really should be asked is if, as a person simply checking out the website rather than being an established member, were to look at Iar's blog, would they think it was an attack on Rich, for example. Clearly, they wouldn't (I'm stealing a little from Shelly here, but she and I are in total agreement on this topic).

"Offensive" isnt a characteristic by which we determine content.

Got to agree with that! Otherwise, we'll be hiding stuff in "Not News" Even this blog is worth it, since it serves a purpose.

Arch,

"Pete: Then I should be able to respond to such trash. And it's not so much about religion as it is about respecting one's faith"

You may certainly do so, by addressing the points in your own article, should you be so inclined.

OK D'Wayne . Thanks for your opinion . The only reason you can take that position is that you hold nothing sacred ... I think . How would you feel if someone wrote a piece attacking the existence of zombies ... just sayin' .

Pete: I hear you, fight fire with fire.

I think Bruce's ideal clicks.

If it's free speech, then under certain circumstances, it needs to be reclassified. If it's too incendiary for the blogspot, then it needs to be moved to Heated Discussions. A simple reclassification.

The only reason you can take that position is that you hold nothing sacred ... I think .

I disagree Rich. I think that Bruce says it best...

Freedom of Speech is going to lead to offending someone at some point. The only thing we limit here is personal attacks. I have said, blogs should be sacred. I should be able to post what I want, allow any comments, or delete comments as I see fit. It's MY blog. That's the rub of it being MINE. Near total control.

Bruce ,

So you are not planning on posting your rules for deletable comments in your future blogs ? That is your choice . However , I think it safe to say you will be getting little or no comments and probably almost no views too .

"How would you feel if someone wrote a piece attacking the existence of zombies ... just sayin' ."

What you are trying to ask is how I would feel if somebody wrote an article that took a stance that offended my sensibilities, beliefs, or personal interests. I am fine with that. If it is in blog form, and I can respond directly, then I will simply write my own article addressing the points i wish to discuss.

"The only reason you can take that position is that you hold nothing sacred"

Now, now Rich...you are personalizing. That is where these issues always stem from. Besides, I think you know I hold the right for gay couples to be married as a sacred belief. I'm not going to censor you to promote that however, nor am I going to cry if I see you write an article entitled "Why buttfuckers arent human" or somesuch. I will simply address the issue.

Rich to Bruce:

However , I think it safe to say you will be getting little or no comments and probably almost no views too .

Errr.. he gets lots of views. It's on the front page.

Lol, that's the rumor out there....

Max,

Checking the tags now.

Perrie ,

That comment was directed at Peter . Do you think he does hold something sacred ... other than zombies that is .

Jon,

I agree.

Max,

Just checked and you are right about those tags...

Rich , Scott , Someone , a , abandonment , ass , has , his , hypocrisy , job , moderation , moderators , stick , up

Deleted.

Rich,

I have just deleted Iar's post. Will you please take any reference about Iar out of this article and make it about the issue.

What I think Rich is that you arent able to separate your personal views from your role as a moderator, and you get so emotionally attached to issues that you lose the ability to discuss, and resort to attacking the other participant(s) instead. This article is a perfect example of that simple, unfiltered fact. I am not seeing where you have demonstrated an ability to handle turmoil in the appropriate, unemotional manner required of moderation.

Are we not able to simply erase tags and leave an article standing?

Damn! Nothing about goat sex?

Bruce ,

[[I have totalitarian control over it.]

Fine . Have totalitarian control . But be fair about it . Post your rules for all to see . In the US you have to be informed of your crime at the time you are arrested ... fairness ... get it ?

A blog is a diary post. The rules are implied. I agree 100% with Bruce here.

Perrie ,

I told everyone they must NOT use profanity here . By posting Iar's tags here you have introduced profanity . I've got a mind to delete your comment ...

Peter,

We are... but when the clear intent was personal... then it has to go. That is why I am asking Rich to remove the personal references, or I will.

By that logic Perrie, this article needs to be deleted.

Peter,

The only reason I am letting this stand, albiet it might have some verbage changed, is because it needs to be clarified. Rich's bad was his comment about what Iar can do to this site. That is a personal attack, The other is an attack on content. And it wasn't followed by a bunch of nasty tags.

Bruce has provided a fine place for that discussion Perrie. In the interest of fairness, this one needs to go, especially considering that this blog led to Iar's. Either way, I'm out for the night. Laters.

LOL Peter,

Heated discussions is my group. I foresaw these type of personal issue arising and that is why I made that group as well as the chat room.

Rich,

Now we have an issue. That is what I wanted.

Feronia,

No. But it's better than a personal fight fest

Hahaha ... I just noticed something interesting in Iar's very 1st comment on this blog . He actually said :
[[in order to justify doing nothing about violations of the Code of Honor]

Yup , that's what he said ... not the Code of Conduct . Get with the program Iar . That was on that other site ... the one you got banned from . Are you suffering from flashbacks ?

Honorable or dishonorable ?

Hey Mike ... you missed all the fun !

Iar, I answered this on Bruce's article.

BTW.. I keep my pitchfork in the garage. Should I get it, LOL!

Sorry to get in to this so late.

As a moderator I'd say move it to Heated Discussion; keeping the front page free of personal/inflammatory attacks is a must.

As a member I found iar's irony blog offensive yet would have appreciated a chance for rebuttal. Theinabilityto do so seems out of character for iar and actually lowers his credibility imho, but it his option to do so.

Iar ,

I informed all that no profanity was to be used in the comments in response to this article . You have already violated that simple restriction . Is it because you can't read [even though it's right there at the bottom of my blog] or because you insist on being l'enfant terrible ...
Your comment has been deleted and copied here w/o the profanity :

I think it's hilarious that Rich is so afraid that I'll show his pathetic argument for the [bleep] that it is, that in an article he's posted for the purpose of soliciting commentary on my "style" of posting, he's decided to prevent me from explaining myself.

Epic fail.

Thanks ever so much for venting your hostility . You work really hard at expressing that emotion . Now if you want to talk about an epic fail it is exemplified by that last statement :
"he's decided to prevent me from explaining myself."

And yet here you are "explaining" yourself . I put that in quotes because it is clear that all of your explanations involve expressions of hostility towards me . In other words , I allow comments . You don't . Even your most recent blog ranthad NO COMMENTS ALLOWED . Is that because you are afraid of what the feedback would be ? If so that would make you a coward .

OK , this is odd . Iar's previous comment is now blank . Who blanked it out ? It was not me .
But I do have a copy of it . Apparently it is possible for members to edit their own comments in blog responses for extended periods . So based on that I'm going to guess Iar purposely BLANKED OUT HIS OWN COMMENT to make it look like I edited it . In other words he is playing a dastardly game of false villification . Such techniques violate the spirit of this community . In fact I have never seen anyone do this on this site before .I'm not going to respond to it because his false villification campaign overshadows the message .Here is the copy I saved :

What would you like me to say? Mike called me a "traitor" and it pissed me off. I asked Rich to moderate, and his response was that I should suck it up, since he decided that it didn't meet the definition of a "personal attack" because Mike phrased it as "like all traitors, you [blah blah blah]..."

And I illustrated the stupidity of this feckless rationalization of Rich's by demonstrating that he is quite well aware that phrasing the insult in such a way does not make it something other than a personal insult. Clearly, if he can recognize that "like all pedophiles, Rich [blah blah blah]" is an insult violating the CoC, he can recognize that calling someone a "traitor" using precisely the same grammatical structure also logically follows as a personal insult which violates the CoC.

Since then, Rich has been attempting to weasel his way out of his clear dereliction of duty as a moderator by trying distribute pitchforks and torches to the villagers and suggesting that the monster who is iarnuocon must be destroyed.

Which is sort of pathetic, when you think about it.

As far as the political cartooning is concerned. I saw Bruce's blogs, and figured both sides should be equally represented. If we're allowed to post cartoons on our own blogs, then why not do so?

As a result, the argument has been forwarded that we're not allowed to post anything in our blogs unless we're willing to entertain endless arguments about our post. In other words, we're required to engage people with whom we disagree, for no other purpose than to make those people comfortable that their viewpoint is heard, without regard to whether or not we have the time to moderate our own blogs.

This is, of course, utter [bleep] . The option to disallow commentary may be for the purpose of shutting down inflammatory conversations, or it may be for preventing them from getting started in the first place, or it may be there for any of a variety of other reasons, but it's there-- there's no rule or requirement that people allow commentary on their blog posts, and it would be a mistake to write one.

Nor does disallowing commentary on one's blog post constitute a "violation" of "free speech". We each have a blog. If you see something you don't like, no one stops you from writing about it on your blog-- although, apparently, if you can contrive an argument that, for example, a humorous photo of a cat rejecting an internet submission is a "personal attack", you can get said blog post deleted. (And what's the insult? That someone is a moderator? That someone rejected a submission? That someone might be a cat?)

At any rate, it's at least amusing to see all this passionate defense of free speech being uttered by individuals who regularly shut down or threaten to shut down opinions with which they disagree.

Ultimately, I guess my major infraction on this site is to hold up a mirror to the hypocrisy of some of its members. The CoC is sacrosanct, except when (in Rich's own words) it's "meaningless", and it applies to everyone, except for Mike (when he's in high dudgeon), or Bruce and Randy (when they're going at each other), or max henry (when he's riding in on his white horse to defend the honor of the helpless and infirm), et al.

Partially, I think all this angst and ire and vitriol (which many people here display, regularly, myself notwithstanding) is a result of the fact that we often discuss politics and this is an election year. Maybe some of it is that this site was, for so long, much like a clubhouse-- high-minded "rules", but since it was the home turf of a tiny clique who internally mediated their own disputes, those rules didn't have to be applied objectively and evenly. Or maybe it's just that I'm missing the dynamic or expect too much out of people who regularly offer lofty opinions about fairness and honor and civility. We are, after all, only human.

At any rate, I find it interesting that my pointed demonstration that there's a problem with moderation and with a specific moderator has now been characterized as an incident with the potential to "destroy the site".

I'm left wondering how I-- a simple poster who offers his opinions-- accumulated such power.

Ok. Cue the litany of personal insults and tirades by my detractors in 3... 2... [1]... Oh, wait. You're all already here and slinging mud. How delightful!

So here is the bottom line : We have a small community site which depends on people not playing dirty tricks to prevent it from falling apart . Yet here we have the most egregious dirty trick being played right here for everyone to see . We need a moderator to step in and deal with this violation of the spirit if not the letter of the CoC . Apparently Iar is forcing a rewrite of the CoC yet again by his dirty tricks .

Nice trick Iar . You are now allowing comments but only after approval . Cute .

At any rate, it's at least amusing to see all this passionate defense of free speech being uttered by individuals who regularly shut down or threaten to shut down opinions with which they disagree.

....and that, in a nutshell is what I've been thinking the whole time.

I'd throw in my two cents on this thread, but honestly, the whole schoolyard-esque "my opinion is better than yours" game is boring the hell out of me. As the resident observe a lot and say not much person, maybe I'll write up something summarizing the whole ugly spiral for everyone. You know....present the facts. But then again, maybe I'll just go stroll my neighborhood, camera in hand. Either way I'm documenting just how strange humans are.....

I agree with Shel, and I agree with Iar's post, as reposted by Rich. I agree with Bruce's opinion on the topic of blogs. Sadly, this has become a recurring theme, wherein moderation is uneven and heavy handed. We all make mistakes, but the key to growth is not repeating those mistakes, nor willfully flaunting them as, in my opinion, this article does. Anyways, I think I too will take a walk in the neighborhood with my camera in hand and let you guys sort this out. Ultimately, my opinion is that this article should be deleted or Iar's should be reinstated, and I feel it is time to reduce the amount of moderators to Perrie and AMac, with maybe one other moderator, rotated out through all willing membership on a regular and frequent basis. All right, I'll check back in a few days to see if anything has changed. Laters.

Shel ,

[[and that, in a nutshell is what I've been thinking the whole time.]

Ehh , so you think that not allowing comments on your blog represents freedom of speech ... You'll have to explain that one to me ...

Peter ,

[[Ultimately, my opinion is that this article should be deleted or Iar's should be reinstated]

Deleted ... why exactly ? And in case you haven't noticed , Iar has in fact reposted his blog on me .This time he removed the offensive tags so it will stay . BTW , I requested [in comments here] that it should not be deleted so don't accuse me of pressuring for deletion .
And he still won't allow comments [except those he approves] . You call that freedom of speech ?

Apparently you too saw that Iar comment as blank . It keeps coming in and out . Someone is playing games with the system ...

[[because you're moderating your blog and approving everyone's comments but mine. When you moderate comments on your blog, they appear blank until you approve them. Mine appears blank on your blog because you did not approve it. This isn't rocket science.]

You are a deeply delusional person . You should get professional help . And I have told you repeatedly not to use profanity but YOU CONTINUE TO DO SO . Can you not read simple English sentences ?

That said I am now going on the assumption that it was a server glitch . I have noticed such events in the past BUT ONLY ON LONG COMMENTS . Maybe the server is trying to give you a hint ... However , you seem to have no inclination to take hints . I wonder why that is . Here's one now : Stop whining about my moderation . I am no longer responsible for your many conflicts . Get someone else to help you out . [end of hint]

[[I realize you have an inordinate sense of your own importance]

Ah projection . That is a classical symptom in the head-shrinking game .